Expert Group 5 on GNSS technologies for EFC Open issues to enable the widespread introduction of...

Expert Group 5 on GNSS technologies for EFCOpen issues to enable the widespread introduction of GNSS-based EFC services in Europe

Expert Group 5 on GNSS technologies for EFC

Open issues to enable the widespread introduction of GNSS-based EFC services in Europe

Final report

Authors: Wolfgang Beier DaimlerChrysler ServicesPaulo André AEAtlantico Ian Catling Ian Catling ConsultancyJean-Francois Gaillet Navteq Rafael Lucas Rodriguez esaEmilio Speciale AutostradeMichel Tossaint esa

February 2005


Introduction

Various experts and standardisation groups are working on details in the definition of the European Electronic Toll Service (EETS) based on GNSS/CN technology

Well advanced is the technical specification ISO 17575 defining the overall architecture and concentrating on the data exchange between an OBU and the back office

A first (in details partly incomplete) draft of an implementation of ISO 17575 defining the minimum features to achieve interoperability among a variety of EETS operators is defined in “MISTER”

Other standards on short, medium and long range communication are ready or well advanced

New standardisation items and projects are defined and work on them will start soon

But it is not completely clear whether all items needed for a widespread introduction in Europe are covered – so, what is still open?


Introduction (2) General Concept of EETS

EETS supports fee collecting according to:

sector A

sector D sector B

sector C

dedicated road of SP Y in sector Ddedicated road of SP Z in sector C

area in sector D with distance based feearea in sector D with cordon pricing or area licensingarea in sector D with time proportional fees

dedicated road of SP X in sector A and D

border segments distance travelled on dedicated roads

distance travelled in defined areas

usage within defined areas

events crossing an area border

time staying in an area

point based charging (Austria, Norway, and many others using DSRC)

all tariffs may depend on time of day

all tariffs may depend on day of week

all tariffs may depend on special days of the year

all tariffs may depend on vehicle classes


Introduction (3) General Concept of EETS

border segments

detailed borderbetween A and B

actual vehicle traceEFC context A

EFC context B

border of EFC-sector

Phase 1: the OBU in the vehicle is locked in at operator A and operates according to the rules provided by operator A

Phase 2: the OBU is locked in at operator A and B and operates according to both rules but only A geo-data are relevant

Phase 3: the OBU is locked in at operator A and B and operates according to both rules but only B geo-data are relevant

Event 1: the OBU enters the border segment and contacts operator B. The address was provided in the context data of A. OBU starts preparing for operation in B. This may include the download of map data

Event 2: the OBU leaves the border segment, locks out at operator A and stops operation of A related functions.

Phase 4: the OBU is locked in at operator B and operates according to the rules provided by operator B

passing the border between different EFC domains


Introduction (4)

ISO PDTS 17575

defining the application interface for long range communication anticipated to be needed for the process of interoperable autonomous EFC in a most comprehensive way

supports of all known and realistic tariff models

allows complete flexibility for contractual relationships between service providers

real implementations according to the “enabling specification” ISO 17575 might not use all the features and options defined

WG5 members are incorporating comments sent by national delegates on final draft


Introduction (5)

MISTER

uses ISO 17575 and limits its options to the minimum needed for an implementation in Europe.

specifies a vehicle platform which allows the secure implementation of that subset of the ISO specification

includes beacon based EFC systems by referencing relevant DSRC documents

allows a variety of EFC definitions with independent operators while still enabling interoperability

Minimum

Roads

European

Specification for

Tolling on

Interoperability


Introduction (6)

Synthesis of beacon based and autonomous tolling

includes the DSRC based tolling

includes GNSS/CN based tolling

CEN DSRC interface

Telepass Interface

CARDME specification

EETS application

GNSS interface

ISO 17575 and MISTER

EFC application(to be defined)

GPRS interface

HMI interface


Introduction (7)

Synthesis including enforcement

supports toll booth applications

supports free flow DSRC applications

supports GNSS/CN application

supports free flow enforcement at gantries

supports free flow enforcement using mobile spot checks

DSRC interface

CARDME specification

EETS application

GNSS interface

MISTER application

GPRS interface

HMI interface

Enforcement specification t.b.d.

ISO 17575


Introduction (6)

anticipated open issues

1. User requirements

2. Positioning sensor aiding devices

3. Digital maps

4. Standards and interoperability

5. GNSS related issues

6. Pan-European maintenance concept

7. Enforcement interoperability

8. Safety services

9. Security

10. GPRS roaming



Hypothesis:- If the EETS OBU has to support all the features of current EFC systems and ideas for the future then it

might be too expensive

Situation today:- Charging systems in existing and planned EFC systems use a wide range of charging rules, input

parameters and charge objects - Error rates need to be minimised in order to promote operability and public acceptability, but there is not

full consensus on what are acceptable maximum error rates- Some user information may be required from OBE HMI but there is no consensus on minimum

requirements- There are two contradictory requirements: keeping a high level of data privacy and keeping the capability

of providing evidence in disputes

Conclusion: - Most anticipated charge system requirements can be accommodated in anticipated GNSS/CN OBE, but

there need to be defined limits of charge system definitions - the geographic parameters defining a charge system must be limited by the realistic location

performance of the OBU- There is a trade-off between OBE cost and functionality



Recommendation:

1. The Commission should arrange for more detailed investigation of charge system definition limits

2. The Commission shall arrange for more detailed investigation of minimum HMI requirements for a EETS OBU

Examples:

- a new expert group may closely work together with the RCI team proposing the minimum HMI requirements- l lane based tariffs might be excluded in the list of usable tariff models- congestion charging with on-line adaptation of the tariff to the actual traffic density might be excluded- acoustic speech outputs or inputs might be excluded- external indications like the external visible lights in Switzerland might be excluded- the smallest road length charged independently might be set to 100m- route dependent charging might be excluded- the list of events immediately triggering clearing might not include local requirements like entering a harbour- …..


Hypothesis:- If the quality of the location performance of an OBU is not specified equally for all European EFC systems

interoperability may remain a vision

Situation today:- OBUs are optimised to reach the accuracy requirements of their own operators with the minimum costs

independent of other existing or future requirements of other EFC operators- Operators are still defining new systems according to their own goals independent of capabilities of existing

OBUs already in operation- MISTER contains a first definition of the location performance requirements for the EETS - Germany uses local augmentation by beacons

Conclusion: –If the EETS does not limit the required measurement quality then technical interoperability will be not

possible –If the local operator requires higher accuracy than the definition of EETS then the operator may use local

augmentation beacons

2. Positioning Sensor Aiding devices


Recommendations:

3. The commission should arrange for the validation and/or refinement of the position accuracy requirements contained in the first draft of the MISTER

4. Member states shall investigate on the legal constrains on the toll concessions if a fee directly depends on measurements taken from GNSS

Examples: OBU suppliers shall confirm that the error distribution defined in MISTER can be met. This may result in a more abstract

definition to allow new ideas of sensor combinations to overcome gaps in the availability of GNSS. what are the required service level agreements (SLAs) if Galileo is used

2. Positioning Sensor Aiding devices


3. Digital maps

Hypothesis:- Digital maps available today may not fulfil immediately all the EETS functional and performance requirements

Situation today:- European map databases available today are specifically designed for vehicle navigation, LBS and GIS

systems- Map providers alone cannot collect and provide definitive charging data because of responsibility issues

between map suppliers and EFC operators- Map accuracy is suitable for navigation systems but needs to be validated for EETS- There is no road map certification process available today- Maps used in OBUs have an expire date set by the SP and are updated on request of the OBU- The communication cost for map updates are paid by the contract operator of the OBU- Digital maps are split into tiles of a size of 10 to 50 kBytes using GSM-B26 to download them

Conclusions: - EFC operators using satellite tolling are solely responsible for defining charging data - Charging data can be added to map databases but legal liability issues will need to be solved and EFC

operators- EFC operators are responsible for checking if map data available from suppliers are suitable (in terms of

accuracy and completeness) to support their charging policies


3. Digital maps

Recommendations:

5. Future generations of he EETS will benefit from a certified European digital maps with charging attributes. For the first generation of EETS maps the EFC operators shall work directly together with the map manufacturers

6. The EFC operators will have the responsibility to investigate that quality levels to be achieved by maps used in future EETS solutions cope with their requirements

7. The Commission should investigate if a certification process for maps to be used in EETS is achievable and required. If such a process is required, the modalities should be specified. However, it appears that interoperability between the products available on the market is not feasible at the time horizon of the launch of the EETS in 2009. Therefore, it remains a question of full responsibility of EFC operators using satellite tolling to investigate which product fits best to their requirements.

8. Digital maps used for the purpose of EFC will be downloaded before entering in the tolled zone. This downloading shall use the GPRS facility of the onboard unit. EFC operators will have the responsibility to ensure that the proper downloading has been successfully achieved. Clients are not deemed to be liable for this operation. The cost for the communication has to be included in the cost of levying the fees

9. CESARE III should investigate whether the cost is to be paid by the visitor – either directly or via his contract operator .



Hypothesis:- Standards and specifications may not be sufficient for manufacturers to produce OBUs or for operators to

define their new EFC systems

Situation today:- ISO 17575 provides a framework for interoperable EFC systems and roaming mechanisms- MISTER is intended to provide the basic technical specification for the EETS- MISTER is partially drafted but is incomplete- A new standardisation work item on data exchange between EFC operators has been approved- Proposal for new work item on test procedures and conformance testing based on ISO 17575

Conclusions: - ISO 17575 and MISTER are suitable for providing the basis of the technical definition of the EETS- The MISTER needs to be completed in a number of areas- There is scope for closer contact between the different bodies with an interest in standardisation



Recommendations:

10. The MISTER should form the complete basis of the technical definition of the EETS, and should be completed in cooperation with RCI

11. The Commission should support the proposed standardisation NWI on conformance testing thru the Mandate 338 provided by DG Enterprise to the European Standardization bodies

12. The DSRC based EFC operators shall be mandated to define a commonly accepted EFC-application

Examples:- allocate resources to complete and maintain MISTER - encourage closer cooperation between the different bodies with an interest in standardisation- CARDME may be the EETS compatible EFC application definition


Hypothesis:- Given suitable commercial conditions, the EETS will use Galileo and EGNOS under defined SLAs

Situation today:- EGNOS and Galileo have potential advantages for EETS:

- Integrity can be used to decrease the liability risk on GPS- Improved accuracy and availability- guaranteed services

- The use of Full EGNOS commercial service readiness is planned for Q3 2005, receivers having the same price as a ‘normal’ GPS receiver

- The price of a combined GPS/EGNOS/Galileo receiver is to be expected almost the same as a GPS receiver which cost about 10-20 Euro at 105 pieces.

- GPS services are not guaranteed- The choice of Galileo and EGNOS Concessionaire will be made in 1Q 2006, so a future SLA is not yet

defined

Conclusion: - The equipment cost is not an issue for upgrading to EGNOS & Galileo- the SLA provides a means to guarantee the location performance of an OBU- If the cost of the SLA is too high, there is a risk that EGNOS & Galileo will not be used

5. GNSS related issues


Recommendations:

13. The EU Commission should seek early clarification with the Galileo Concessionaire on planes for an EFC service level agreement (SLA)

14. The EETS OBU specification (MISTER) should include a guaranteed minimum location performance.

15. In order to gain experience with guaranteed services, RCI and similar projects should use EGNOS

5. GNSS related Issues


Hypothesis:- If OBU maintenance strategies do not support pan-European use the customer acceptance may not be

sufficient

Situation today:- Today there is an urgent need to repair a defective OBU only inside the EFC domain it is belonging too and

there the density of repair shops is sufficient- Today the OBUs are not installed by the vehicle manufacturers, so there is no process defined in the vehicle

manufacturers’ service station network to handle spare parts or how to exchange defect OBUs

Conclusion: –In an interoperable EFC world there will be OBUs from local operators/manufacturers which do not have a

pan-European service network–As long as the OBU interface to the vehicle is not standardised, the cost to handle the service in an

independent service network will be quite expensive and the quality may not be assured –The vehicle user may require a possibility to repair a broken OBU wherever it is required to use it–In order to be able to exchange the OBU and using a different brand or type, the configuration and the

security means must be able to be transferred by the service station without using a proprietary process



Recommendations:

16. The need for a pan-European OBU maintenance and/or exchange service shall be investigated in cooperation with CESARE III

17. As long as OBUs are not installed by the vehicle manufacturer it is necessary to define one or more electrical and mechanical interfaces between OBU and the vehicle

18. Complete the detail in MISTER to enable an OBU exchange with a common process in the service stations

19. The maintenance concept has to be harmonised with the results of the Expert Group 6




Hypothesis:- If local enforcement procedures cannot be applied to foreign vehicles and/or OBUs than interoperability

is not achievable

Situation today:- Procedural and institutional enforcement issues investigated by VERA2- Aspects of enforcement also covered by expert group 3- Technically, enforcement depends on capturing visual images of violating vehicles and/or the capability

to stop violating vehicles - Short range communication (IR) is used to read out the last transaction and log-file entries

Conclusion: - The only requirement for technical interoperability is for the enforcement communication link to be

standardised. This is essential to achieve full interoperability and is covered by CEN 14906- Short range communication should be the only enforcement communication in order to reduce

complexity- There is a need for coordination between activities dealing with enforcement issues which are partly

covered by EETS related activities of the commission- MISTER does not yet contain all the necessary parameters to define the short-range communication

requirements



Recommendations:

20. MISTER should be completed with the necessary short-range communication parameters

21. An expert group should be launched in order to specify the functional requirements for the enforcement process in open toll systems (with no barriers), and the technologies involved


Hypothesis:- If a minimum of safety services are not defined from the very beginning than the chance of a widespread

introduction may be lost

Situation today:- OBUs for autonomous EFC services include sensors and some HMI features to handle some (safety

related) services- The EETS will provide a large deployment of onboard units in trucks and long distance coaches. This

provides a large opportunity to deploy rapidly new services related to Road Safety, Traveller Information and Fleet Management.

- The Directive 2004/52 includes in its preamble clause 8 the expectation that the European EFC service shall open the door for new safety and information services

- However, in the definition of existing EFC systems there are no services of any kind included.- Then, the European Court had forbidden to use the EFC OBUs for telematic services until detailed

preconditions are met to guaranty open competition (EFC module availability and CAN bus interface)

Conclusion: –If the general conditions to implement services are not changed any service including safety and information

services will not be implemented

8. Safety Services


Recommendations:

22. The Commission shall arrange for investigation for the conditions for the deployment of a minimum set of safety services the EETS OBU should support in order to facilitate the deployment of ITS services using the opportunity of the EETS deployment in vehicles

23. The Commission should strongly recommend the inclusion in the EETS OBU of at least those safety functions which do not significantly increase OBU cost. MISTER should already start to include the required elements.

24. Within these studies, the Commission should investigate institutional mechanisms for establishing and operating the minimum set of safety services

Examples:- automatic emergency calling with caller location- management of dangerous goods- inter vehicle hazard warning (using IR)

8. Safety Services


Hypothesis:- Cooperation between EFC operators may be accepted only if the security level allows processes among

non-trusted partners

Situation today:- Today all existing EFC services uses their own proprietary security means. - None of them are practical to be used in a cooperation among “non-trusted” operators- It is anticipated that a “European Trust Centre” will not be accepted because the risk allocation together

with the commercial responsibility may not be solvable

Conclusion: –A peer to peer security architecture using asymmetric keys may be the only solution–The definitions in MISTER set out a practical concept but not enough detail for an implementation

9. Security


Recommendations:

25. The Commission should arrange for levels of trust between EFC operators to be defined (e.g. allocated to CESARE III)

26. The Commission should arrange for the investigation of the achievable security level of the EETS defined in MISTER by an independent IT security audit organisation.

9. Security


Hypothesis:- The setup of GSM/GPRS may not efficiently support the special communication needs for EFC in a roaming

scenario

Situation today:- Today almost all GSM networks provide GPRS- Layer 3 is based on IP version 4 which is very limited in the amount of available addresses- To save address space GSM provider normally don’t offer global IP addresses which prevents mobile

terminated “calls”- Mobile terminated GPRS transactions require a permanent PDP context which may result in unacceptable

high cost- Layer 4 is not standardised. Some provider use UDP which is not fully error corrected, some use proprietary

definitions, some use TCP which performs badly while moving

Conclusion: –The whole communication stack currently is not optimised for mobile mass application–There is no common agreed procedure for mobile terminated transactions which are needed for

maintenance and services–due to the variety in different implementations of upper layers roaming is currently possible only inside

closed groups of providers- B26 and SMS are in principal sufficient for EETS

10. GPRS Roaming


Recommendations:

27. as long as the full GPRS communication stack is not harmonised the EETS shall allow also bearer 26 and SMS as a backup means

28. the EU should obtain that the ISO CALM standard in its GSM G2,5 media will include the layer management to handle the special roaming requirements fitting to the existing networks in Europe. This may be a specific requirement covered by Mandate 338

29. ETSI shall mandated to harmonise the European GPRS “flavours”

30. The EU and the Regulatory Committee should later work on the possible migration from GSM GPRS to UMTS, when this technology is sufficiently deployed

10. GPRS Roaming


Summary of recommendations

The commission should arrange for a more detailed investigation addressed to

MISTER:– completion of MISTER including precise accuracy requirements of the sensors [2,14,18,20, 26]– definition of attributes and non functional requirements on digital maps usable for EETS [5]– how OBUs can be certified [16]– using MISTER in RCI to qualify the usability [10,15]

Operators Point of View:– limits in charge system [1]– minimum HMI requirements [2]– defining details on how GNSS shall be used [4]– the security architecture sketched in MISTER [25,26]– plan to organise a pan-European maintenance scheme for EETS OBUs [16,19]

Standards:– setting up a NWI on conformance testing [11]– defining a NWI in standardising the interface of retrofit OBUs to vehicles [17]– which DSRC transaction will be compatible with the EETS [12]– defining the enforcement communication to include foreign vehicles into local enforcement procedures [21]– setting up a NWI in standardising the GSM media in the layers 3 to 7 in the CALM environment [28,29]

Commission/Galileo Concessionaire:– Helping to define a SLA with the upcoming Galileo concessionaire [13]– which safety services shall be mandatory implemented in EETS OBUs [22,23,24]

Expert Group 5 on GNSS technologies for EFC Open issues to enable the widespread introduction of...

Documents

Transcript of Expert Group 5 on GNSS technologies for EFC Open issues to enable the widespread introduction of...